Benjamin, you make salient points in your response. In truth, as the former Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger once said, their newspaper, and say my article, can only be snapshots of epistemological truths. Put 10 journalists in a room the joke goes and they’ll never agree. The very nature of journalism resides on points of view from those with specific knowledge and those sometimes without it and journalism is by no means a homogenous profession. Except somehow it appears to anchor itself in panorama-type agendas.
It requires writers, you, others to present their interpretations of events. I’m writing this from a perspective to which I have concerns and you’re certainly doing the same. Neither of us can fulfil presenting a definitive picture. We certainly could exhaust a point of view in a 100,00 word book but the problem arises when journalist claim their offerings represent everything that matters.
At best journalism is a dialogue, but in the interest of its business it pretends it’s a definitive piece of work. I’m reminded of how the news package emerged. Its average length is 2.20 mins in the UK. How did that come about? Not because 2.20 is enough to reconcile a whole story but because executives in the 1950s believed we’d get bored with watching anything longer. We’re stuck with that today. Journalism (traditional) certainly needs a reboot. Unlike the sciences there is no square root of four equals two in this strange thing called journalism. Look forward to reading your POVs. Thanks Benjamin for engaging